Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Two experiments are reported which compared proof-reading performance across three different modes of presentation. The results of Experiment 1 indicated that proof-reading accuracy was significantly worse on a VDU than on paper, with a photograph of the VDU display producing intermediate performance. It was also demonstrated that substitutions of visually similar errors were harder to detect than other error types. The results of Experiment 2 replicated these findings, but failed to find any difference between twin-column and single-column presentation. The findings are interpreted as indicating that character font may be a major factor in the poor performance with the VDU. It is suggested that the present experimental paradigm could be a useful assessment tool for the evaluation of display design.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Creed et al. (1987) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: